Highly Recommended Reading: The Art of a Beautiful Game

Chris Ballard wrote about how Battier guards Kobe back in May during the playoffs:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/chris_ballard/05/14/kobe/index.html

 

I just downloaded it instantly onto my Sony EReader. If you like reading, I highly recommend getting an ebook reader like the Sony or the Kindle by amazon. The screen looks like the page of a book, not a computer screen, it's pretty incredible.

I read this guy's article on Battier awhile back and can't wait to start this book.

 

Has anyone read Bill Simmons' new book on the NBA? I was thinking of giving it a try as well.

 

Thanks for the heads up. I'm going to order it now from Amazon.

 

Ahhhhhhh.......

Somebody noticed this too, I see, steddinotayto.

Well, Kobe Bryant is a different animal. As the book this thread is titled for indicates, there is almost no length that Bryant wouldn't go to to achieve what he wants—and that is to be one of the best players in NBA history.

Bryant doesn't simply want to be in the discussion. He wants to be seen as great, at the very least, as Michael Jordan. Time won't grant Bryant the perspective to understand that such comparisons, at the end of the day, are simply semantics, because Bryant is so driven.

But I've always respected Bryant for that. He doesn't care that some people will see him as selfish or uncaring or heartless. Some people will see him as a bad teammate or a cutthroat competitor. Some will see him as ruthless and uncompromising. Those people would be right.

But they wouldn't understand.

The thing, to me, about Bryant's assessment of McGrady (as brief and succinct as it is), is how respectful it is of McGrady's ability and his mindset.

I'm a bit of a history buff, myself, steddinotayto, so it's very difficult for me to take an objective approach to the future without accurately analyzing the past.

Bryant, as a competitor in the NBA today, probably has only Kevin Garnett as an equal as far as competitive intensity and relentlessness goes. I think, that if Bryant had considered Tracy McGrady's competitive instincts to be lacking (as it has be offered ad nauseum too many times to count to explain McGrady's lack of playoff success), he certainly would have mentioned it.

Bryant feels, like Rick Adelman seems to, that what Tracy McGrady is is a complete offensive weapon. Bryant's opinion that McGrady BELIEVES that he is not as good once he relinquishes the basketball offensively says to me, that McGrady has not had people around him that were capable decision-makers and passers. Or at least, capable enough to give the responsibility of offensive facilitator to someone else.

That's another argument about McGrady's effort level and competitiveness and lack of heart (well, actually three arguments), but I would prefer that McGrady be the player that finishes offensive plays for the Rockets. Not the guy who decides who else should get to finish. Especially guys that can't do that reliably or consistently.

I would imagine that Bryant knows what he's talking about mostly though, steddinotayto, because he had the same type of epiphany himself. Bryant just didn't get suckered into thinking he was going to make his teammates better by passing them the basketball if they weren't good enough like McGrady has been here. Kobe's a lot more comfortable passing to Pau Gasol or Lamar Odom or even Derek Fisher than he ever was with the scraps that were left after Shaquille O'Neal left Los Angeles.

As brief and to-the-point as Bryant was with his measuring of McGrady, is exactly the same assessment (by extension) of the Rockets before the 2008-2009 season.

The players around McGrady have to be good enough to hold their own and do their jobs. No team is going to win outside of that.

And as ruthless a player as Bryant is, he didn't call McGrady a quitter or a coward or a cancer or a chemistry killer for not being able to win by himself.

Maybe Kobe's not such a bad guy after all (unless you count dropped rape charges)....

 

Here is a review from ESPN

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/7128/the-art-of-a-beautiful-game

This book sounds great.

 

I trust you guys more than ESPN.

 

Interesting, how when Tracy McGrady left Toronto to go to Orlando as a free agent, steddinotayto, that the plan was for him to play alongside Grant Hill and possibly even Tim Duncan. He was never supposed to be the "alpha dog". He was never, at least initially, expected to be the "alpha dog".

Fate or circumstance changed that a bit. But McGrady did accept that challenge in Orlando. That doesn't suggest a quitter or underachiever mindset, to me, either.

McGrady is frustratingly tempermental, to me. Insecurity isn't his problem. Maturity is, to a large extent (or, as large as you can figure excepting his injury history).....

Bryant is what would be considered in certain circles a "basketball genius". Bryant not only understands the X's and O's of the game, but he also understands the people who he plays with and the people he plays against.

McGrady is what I would consider a "basketball savant". McGrady's talent is unquestionable. But he had to have a role defined for him, perhaps moreso than any other player of his ability level. I'd heard so much of the same things about Kevin Garnett during his time in Minnesota (even up until the time he was traded), about how Garnett didn't know how to win or how he disappeared when it mattered most, or even with questioning Garnett's desire and effort (a particularly cheap and low shot on a guy who'd legitimized that franchise for so many seasons).....

At the end of the day, steddinotayto, McGrady's reputation as a ball player will be determined by his performance on the court, and the wins and/or losses that will result from that.

I believe that McGrady has his work cut out for him. But what history also shows us about McGrady, is that he does really seem to be a glutton for punishment.....

 

Ooops. My bad, nick.

 

Great insight...deserving rep ^10

 

Crap, I missed this thread. I'm going to add this to my next order immediately. I love this kind of analysis/1-on-1 with players.

 

Yeah, I finished it a few days ago and it was a really good, highly recommended read, especially if you've ever wanted to know more about the NBA in the 60s and 70s, just a wealth of info there. Added bonus is Simmons' usually entertaining humorous style (honestly, the plethora of footnotes are all hilarious).


But the excerpts I'm reading in this thread are making me think this book may be even better than Simmons'. I am definitely picking this one up tomorrow.

 

I don't know about KG. I mean, aside from the Boston team, I can't think of any Sota team that got further than they were supposed to get. That dude just didn't have any help....

 

Well, again, Icehouse....

....I usually only mention players in the same sentence (in this case, Tracy McGrady and Kevin Garnett) when the situations on the court tend to mirror themselves in some respects.

I haven't fooled myself into thinking I know Kevin Garnett any better than I know Tracy McGrady. But the game is ridiculously simple at this level, Icehouse.

The only things about it that change are the guys playing it.

Garnett didn't have any help in Minnesota for most of his career. But because he himself was so singularly talented (in my mind, more talented than McGrady because of his size and ability to effectively play all five positions on both ends), nobody was going to accept that he shouldn't have at least gotten out of the first round if he really wanted to win, Icehouse.

There were the same types of arguments about not having favorable matchups because of low seedings (which, if Garnett was a better player, he would have avoided and gotten a higher seeding), and about Garnett not wanting the ball late in close games, and so much of the same sort of drivel that's passed around about McGrady that I seriously wonder if the two of them weren't separated at birth, Icehouse.

The organization in Minnesota complained that Garnett's contracts kept them from getting him help, among other weak arguments, and topped off all that garbage by saying he didn't play hard during his final weeks there.

Ridiculous.

Predictable. Repetitive, when an organization wastes talent and opportunity like Garnet provided, as has been done several times by many teams.

But still utterly ridiculous.

Garnett and McGrady are not the same player, Icehouse. Especially now. But their talent will never let lay-fans understand why they aren't able to win more often than they do.

Again, a basketball genius like Kobe Bryant understands that he needs productivity from his teammates in order to win. It didn't matter to him how it happened (calling out teammates and coaches, demanding and torpedoing trades), as long as it did happen. Savants like Garnett and McGrady know what they can do, and will try their best to do whatever you ask of them, will not admit that their teammates are as culpable in the teams' success and failure as they are.

But that would be seen as weakness. Or cowardice. Or mutiny. Or selfishness.

If I were to give any advice to Tracy McGrady, Icehouse, it would be to start winning basketball games, so that he can get away with being this worthless human being a lot easier.....